Chach

21 hours ago, dunlopp9987 said:

Being Black in this country is a struggle I will never understand, but I can read and watch and listen and learn, and hope that we can eventually live in not a post-racial society, but an anti-racist society.

This sounds like you have only been reading Ibrham X Kendi and Ta-Nehisi Coates, I'd recommend complementing it with some Glenn Loury and John McWhorter, both of whom are sick of being infantilised by well meaning white people who profess to be anti-racist while holding black people to a lower standard.

It also sounds like you still believe in biological race which is the only thing that will keep racism alive so I would also recommend this.

21 hours ago, dunlopp9987 said:

And I usually don't like to use this argument, but in this case it seems relevant. I see you're in Australia. Are you an American living there? Have you spent a significant amount of time living here in the US, particularly with any Black friends who you might have had conversations with regarding this topic? 

On this subject I primarily listen to black public intellectuals who are honestly engaging with the data and who are interested in evidence based solutions to improve the lives of the most vulnerable people in society (of whom black people are disproportionately represented) because I am genuinely horrified by the carnage and inequality that goes on in your country.

19 hours ago, dunlopp9987 said:

And did you see the data on the WaPo that says despite Black people making up just 13% of the population, they are killed by police at more than twice the rate of white people? 

And to your point about "all the people shot have in common is they are almost always armed and threatening police", why don't we talk about Eric Garner? Or Sandra Bland. Or Philando Castile. Or Tony Robinson. Or Walter Scott. Or Freddie Gray. Or Botham Jean. Or Breonna Taylor. Or Elijah McClain. Or George Floyd. Or Amir Locke.

 

I literally put in my post that black people are disproportionally involved in police killings so I am not sure what point you are trying to make with your first comment, my point was that there is no evidence it's racially motivated. Do you have any, and why are twice as many white people shot and what motivated that?

To your second point I said the majority not all of them and again why cherry pick people of colour? Is it because you don't even know the names of the white people which was my actual point that you refuse to engage with!

How many people out of the ones you listed resisted arrest?

Which of the people in this thread would refuse to comply with a lawful direction and go hands on with a cop who is carrying a gun?

After these horrific events where are the leaders pleading with people to comply with the directions of police even if they feel at the time they are being unjustly arrested?

The one I was most personally disturbed by in your list, the sheer senselessness of was Philando Castile, but do you think the fact that civilians (him in this instance) are driving around with their wives and children with guns in the car might be a slightly mitigating circumstance in the way cops behave?  

You can go on youtube and watch cops get shot in traffic stops doing their job, 62 last year (thats just the ones shot, quite a few get run over with cars), do you know any of their names. Quite a few black ones no doubt.

Breonna Taylor is another one that I find gobsmacking particularly when non US progressives are spouting about it, "they didn't knock" meanwhile her dropkick of a boyfriend doesn't think it's necessary to identify who is coming in and just opens fire. Completely normal behaviour and not remotely psychopathic. This doesn't hold up in any other western country.

18 hours ago, Sibdane said:

Ignore him, Palf. He's a grammar Nazi, if anything. If a person has to resort to correcting grammar/spelling rather than continuing to engage then that person has already lost the argument. He knew what you were getting at, and it was just a way for him to act/feel superior. 

Nothing to do with grammar or spelling, I don't respond because he is not responding to the point I am making and I have been down those rabbit holes with Palfy too many times, they are not productive and neither of us get anything out of it.

I am not interested in debate on the internet, I am only interested in dialectic.

7 hours ago, Cornish Steve said:

Mitch McConnell, Republican leader in the Senate, just gave his explanation of those events: "It was a violent insurrection for the purpose of trying to prevent the peaceful transfer of power after a legitimately certified election from one administration to the next. That's what it was."

I am really not understanding why this is hard to comprehend Steve, read the actual words in the post you are replying to, there is no mention of overpowering security and storming a building, there is a distinction between the two groups that is important.

7 minutes ago, Cornish Steve said:

No it's not. In this case, it was nothing short of attempted insurrection.

You've misread the posts, I was referring to the discussion and Palfy's  claim that because I am drawing a comparison between the behaviour of the GOP and Democrat politicians that I must be a secret Nazi rather than someone who is simply interested in the truth of opinions.

22 hours ago, dunlopp9987 said:

protests and riots were happening because Black people are continuing to be murdered by the police in this country.

To the original point, this is a framing that doesn't actually hold up to any scrutiny.

The evidence of racially motivated killings by the police in the US is rare as hens teeth yet you could be convinced that black people were being hunted in the streets from the way it is covered.

African Americans are disproportionately represented but are still far less by number because of demographics, what all the people shot have in common is they are almost always armed and threatening police.

There's a data base on the WaPo that records all the data that funnily enough was started after the Michael Brown shooting, an incident where a majority of people still believe that he had his hands in the air saying "don't shoot" when he was shot because that was the way it was covered.

Dialect and dialectic are not the same thing, after you learn the difference and given time you should be able to work the rest out.

Godspeed.

5 minutes ago, Palfy said:

you make me wonder what your real agenda is in your views. 

It's called dialectic Palfy, people have been doing it for 1000's of years and it's how we made progress in our political discourse.

Mindless partisanship, the kind that you largely engage in is how we generally end up in wars.

3 minutes ago, Matt said:

So 2 wrongs make a right?

Where did I say that?

14 hours ago, dunlopp9987 said:

It's the fact that they are calling what happened on Jan 6th "legitimate political discourse." 

And yet they sling every imaginable insult at protests against police brutality against Black people. 

It's just gone past the point of believability.

This is part of the problem though isn't, the way the way things are reported.

Showing up January 6 to listen to an address, hold up a sign and demonstrate your dissatisfaction with an election outcome is legitimate political discourse, not everybody marched and stormed the capitol.

After an incident of police brutality showing up to a demonstration, holding up a sign and demonstrating your dissatisfaction with policing is legitimate political discourse, setting peoples businesses on fire and looting shops isn't but that never stopped Democrat leaders from excusing the anarchy so why would we expect the GOP to be any different?

What am I missing here, the headline doesn't fit the actual quote?

G.O.P. Declares Jan. 6 Attack ‘Legitimate Political Discourse’

"They chose to join Nancy Pelosi in a Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens who engaged in legitimate political discourse that had nothing to do with violence at the Capitol.”

Edit: Got it, the censure resolution omitted the distinction. 

1 hour ago, Hoof_It_Nev said:

Purely hypothetical but... 

 

Maybe he gives 100% in training 

Maybe he loves the club and really wants to play for us

He did well when he first came in and maybe he's convinced he can still play with the same returns if given a lengthy run 

Maybe he sees the revolving door of managers and he's waiting for one to give him a chance

On the outside it might look like he's a mercenary because he's not moving away, but there's always the possibility of any combination of the points above, we really don't know. 

 

Or maybe he's laughing at a company paying him millions a year to sit on his arse... Probably seems more likely after writing this

Also he has a wife and kids so maybe given he knows he off at the end of his contract guaranteed doesn't want to move twice for the sake of 6 months.

*I also understand he is a symbol of our diabolical situation so can understand people being pissed off.

Now just need to get the guy who sprayed the 'Pereira Out Lampard In' graffiti to start spraying some transfer suggestions.

5 minutes ago, MikeO said:

I'm not.

But thanks for the advice.

Well I suspect you'll certainly try a bit harder for the next week

I'll help by critiquing all of your posts about Boris.

You're welcome.

6 minutes ago, MikeO said:

So I should just forget about the guy who's running my country then? Sounds like a plan, shall I shut my eyes and put my fingers in my ears as well?

If you're at the point where you're struggling to be objective and it improves your mental health, yes. 

17 hours ago, MikeO said:

I don't want Johnson gone, I want him to still be in charge at the next election so the country can throw him out.

You should throw him out of your head, he seems to live up there rent free Micko 

He might be in a rough patch now but come 2024 CV will be a distant memory, the economy will have roared back to life and Spring will just be about to turn into Summer, Labour have more chance with Boris gone IMO.

The sad truth is probably no one else wants the job, it's becoming clearer and clearer that we are an omni-shambles.

Must be about time to add the poll.

6 hours ago, Palfy said:

Fair enough Chach we see it from a different view point, anyway mate happy new year and let’s see what the footballing god’s have in store for 2022. 

Same to you, sir!

10 hours ago, Palfy said:

So that makes it even worse that he would then do what he did, or in your opinion on what you have said above are you now saying he has earned the right to shit on the club, and we should forgive forget and applaud and welcome him back, it would split the fan base no end and he wouldn’t improve the team, we have better players than him in MF, was he really that good when he was here, he was possibly the most inconsistent player in the team. He went to Chelsea and didn’t improve them he went to Villa and didn’t improve them, let him enjoy the extra money he made on his deal but don’t allow him to rub our noses in it, the supporters at Chelsea made their feeling be known by constantly booing every time he touched the ball, so before anyone at the club has the shortsightedness to think of bringing him back they need to take on board what the supporters think about having a snake back in the club. 

The thing is Palfy it's all conjecture, neither of us really know what happened, you have taken the worst possible interpretation of what happened and then labelled it a fact in your head and it's left you full of resentment about something that may or may not have happened. And like Mike Skinner said, 'resentment, is the poison you take hoping someone else with suffer.'

Even if I am delusional, at least I aint bovvered.

7 hours ago, Matt said:

What benefit was that exactly? We didn't win anything with him, and he wasn't exactly doing it for free either. 

Compare him cost wise transfer fees and wages to one of his peers, the Icelander or a Bolassie or one of his replacements like Gomes or Bernard.

We paid Barkley less than 50k per week the entire time, wouldn't even get to 10m if you included the cost of all the 'nurturing'.

Given what we know now about the chaos at the club I just think we can give him the benefit of the doubt likes Shukes said rather than believe he was involved in some kind of Machiavellian plot to fuck us over.

Hanlon's razor.

17 minutes ago, Matt said:

That would be true most of the time. The key missing points though, that separates him from the rest, is that Everton were his boyhood club, Everton raised him and brought him into the fray, he got to play for the team he loved and when it came to move (which I don't think anyone begrudges him for) he dawdled so that club who nurtured him and he supported lost out on a massive chunk of funds, from which he profited massively, financially at least. That 1 decision, no matter how logical it may seem from the outside, is why he will never be accepted again. He was one of our own, not some transfer. 

The only key missing point in this discussion is people ignoring the benefit that the club had from him, it's completely forgotten in the equation, for 4 years he was among the first names on the team sheet.

Tall poppy syndrome.

10 minutes ago, Formby said:

If a club has to sell a player, they're going to want the best possible deal for them. That's just common business sense. 

This goes both ways, players sign contracts and they want the best possible deal for them. Their only obligation is to honour the terms and conditions of the contract which he did.

There's a long conga line of players stealing money from the club in transfer fees and wages over the last few years and he's nowhere it.